Skip to content
Josh Kattus

#84Josh Kattus

Josh Kattus is a Versatile TE for Kentucky.

What projects, and what doesn't · TEs · held out 2019-2025

How well one season predicts the next, measured on seasons the model never trained on. 1.00 would be perfectly predictable; 0.00 means last year told us nothing.

  • Usage share (volume)0.42
    Beats guessing the TE average by 9%. n=2,225 TE seasons
  • EPA per play (efficiency)0.04
    Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=2,016 TE seasons
  • Total EPA (value)0.46
    Beats guessing the TE average by 13%. n=2,016 TE seasons

Across all positions, usage carries year to year at 0.47 and efficiency at 0.07. So Josh Kattus's projection is a projection of opportunity — how much of the offense he runs through. How well he converts it is something this model does not claim to know a year in advance, and the number above is why.

2025 Production

Receiving
17 Receptions195 Rec yards2 Rec TD11.5 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume13
  • Explosiveness30
  • Consistency58
  • Pass-Down52
Player type
Versatile TE

Balanced profile without a single dominant trait — contributes across multiple dimensions.

Balanced usageMulti-role
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency58th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among TEs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • 5 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 1.23 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 3.06 EPA/play in Wk 6 vs Georgia (SP+ 24).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Elite

Top-3 player at position nationally. Collective + national brand deals.

Tier is a model estimate based on position, school brand, performance rank, and usage — not a reported deal. NIL deals are private. For a real market valuation, see On3's NIL profile, which factors in social following and actual deal tracking.

Historical Comparables · TE · efficiency + volume + value

Players from 2013–2025 matched on EPA efficiency, play volume, and adjusted value tier — not just one metric.

PlayerTeamWEPA/playLine valTotal EPA
Ty ThompsonTulane0.4200.720.2
Seth GreenMinnesota0.3900.032.4
Johnny LanganRutgers0.3000.017.7
Evan SvobodaWyoming0.2900.521.8
Jordan MyersRice0.2700.215.9

Comps are statistical — efficiency, volume, and value tier all factor in. Style and conference context differ.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+3.0603.06Wk 1 vs Toledo: +1.11 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Ole Miss: -0.43 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Eastern Michigan: +1.98 EPA/play3Wk 6 vs Georgia: +3.06 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs Texas: +0.60 EPA/play8Wk 10 vs Auburn: +0.73 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Florida: -0.30 EPA/play11Wk 13 vs Vanderbilt: -0.22 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsToledoW24-166.034314.30181.11
2vsOle MissL23-3024.0284.005-0.43
3vsEastern MichiganW48-23-14.736120.31341.98
6@GeorgiaL14-3524.112929.01293.06
8vsTexasL13-1616.23227.30110.60
10@AuburnW10-311.622010.00110.73
11vsFloridaW38-73.5263.004-0.30
13@VanderbiltL17-4520.3166.006-0.22

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
4.7%
Passing plays
9.7%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
4.5%
Passing downs
5.1%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.65
Passing downs
0.66
Pass / Rush EPA
0.66 / —

Usage = share of team plays (CFBD has no true snap counts).

EPA = expected points added (opponent-adjusted). NIL estimates are model-based ranges, not reported deals. Data: CollegeFootballData. Not betting advice.